22 replies to this topic

[fcharton]

Hello,

Some 20 years ago, when I was studying chinese, I remember some researchers had doubts on the historical importance of the terracotta warriors in Xian. Some went as far as saying the whole thing was a forgery, others that a relatively small finding had been made into a huge discovery. Now, I do not "buy" this, but they made an interesting point, here goes.

Usually, big archaelogical findings (and there have been many in China) tend both to confirm and disprove traditional writings, by giving them some substance, but usually removing the dramatic/novelistic part in them. Now, they said, the Xian discovery seemed to confirm, word for word, the only account we have of this tomb (for what I know), that of Sima Qian, written more than a century after Qin's demise, and which had before been considered as characteristic of Qian's ability to put life into historical facts by dramatising them.

Where the doubters do have a point is that, in contrast with other findings, the Xian discovery seems to teach us little more than "simaqian was right after all...".

Out of curiosity, have others on this forum heard of such a controversy?

Francois

[Alexander39]

The theory is twenty years old from when China was a closed country, so a the time it was wasy to give it some meerit but it has several flaws, not least as time has passed it by.

1) All conspirasy theories normally has one fundamental flaw (Like this one), To many people has to keep their mouth shut for to long, simply not plausible taking into account how many there had to been involved, and the fact that several of the figures has beeen lent out to other countries for exhibitions and testing.

2) Far from all of Sima Qians describtions has been verified as yet, not least the inside of the tomb. Only the outside parts has showend themself to be accurate, which is easily to explain since only one century after the emperors death, most of the burial site was known and easily accessible at the time, the outside part of it that is.

3) Even if the old CCP should have startet this massive fraud, it seems to be a lot of energy, and an immence risk of losing face to place in this one con.(IE be the laughing stock of the whole world)
For that alone it is not very likely.

But if you whish to beleive in conspiracy then no amount of of explaining or logic will persuade you otherwise i know, the theory about Kennedys murder has far more plausibillity and ease of excecution, compared to this one.

Edited by Alexander39, 13 September 2005 - 05:01 AM.

[jlaporte]

Out of curiosity, have others on this forum heard of such a controversy?

No idea, but there has been a famous case of proven forgery in another North East Asia country who tried to recreate a glorious past by planting artifacts.

In the case of Qing Shi Wang, however, you MUST expect a huge tomb, considering what he was, and the forgery seems the most impractical of all theories. Can you see the point of forging all these soldiers when the emperor of the most populated country of the world had all the help he needed 2 300 ago to carry out his will?
You can also date figures by measuring the "fossilised" magnetic field, but you must know all this.

Interesting topic though.

[fcharton]

No idea, but there has been a famous case of  proven  forgery in another North East Asia country who tried to recreate a glorious past by planting artifacts.   

In the case of Qing Shi Wang, however, you MUST expect a huge tomb, considering what he was, and the forgery seems the most impractical of all theories. Can you see the point of forging all these soldiers when the emperor of the most populated country of the world had all the help he needed 2 300 ago to carry out his will?
You can also date figures by measuring the "fossilised" magnetic field, but you must know all this.

Interesting topic though.

Just to set the record straight, I, personally, don't believe in this theory. What sent me wondering was that I heard it from pretty serious persons back then, and never heard of it since. I was just curious about whether such a "school of doubt" still existed or not.

From a purely historical perspective, that some could doubt the significance of the Xian findings would not have surprised me, knowing that :

1- over time, chinese historians proved to be some of the most skeptical in the world, just look at the number of controversies which have happened over time on the authenticity of nearly every classical historical text...
2- without resorting to the "whole forgery" theory, which sounds way too Hollywoodian to be true, there is a longstanding historic tradition of "adapting" archeological findings to received knowledge. An interesting description of this process can be found in Granet's "Chinese civilisation", related to the Zhushujinian findings. There are, in my opinion, "light" versions of this theory which would assume that a comparatively small finding was made into a huge discovery...

This said, I agree that there are many ways to debunk such an idea, just by dating the warriors (although this would not prove they were QSH's).

On the size of the tomb, note that the idea of a ruler being buried among lakes of mercury, under a mountain, does not originate with Qin Shihuang. Scattered through the commentaries of the Shiji are references to similar tombs for great rulers of the past. For instance, Fuchai of Yue (chapter 31) is said (according to the Yuejueshu, quoted in the Jijie commentary) to have been buried under an artificial mountain built by his soldiers. And duke Huan of Qi (chapter 32), was said to be (according to the Kuo Dizhi, quoted in the Zhengyi) buried under a mountain, in a lake of mercury, with weapons, soldiers and treasures around him. I am certain other similar references could be found in ancient texts.

That Qin Shihuang could *not* have a huge tomb does not strike me as completely implausible. After all, this is the case of many important rulers in history, and the quick collapse of the Qin dynasty after Zheng's death could have shattered his plans for a huge funeral...

Francois

[Sephodwyrm]

Well, if you're asking about the historical significance of the Qin terracotta, it actually represented an advancement from burying your slave soldiers etc with you when you passed away. This practice was banned in the state of Qin under the rule of Marquis Xian of Qin (the father of marquis Xiao who used the legalist scholar Wei Yang to make the state into a powerful one).

In the Han dynasty, many princes, emperors, queens etc also buried terracotta warriors along with them, but the scale could not surpass that of the first emperor's terracotta army.

[Koolasuchus]

That Qin Shihuang could *not* have a huge tomb does not strike me as completely implausible. After all, this is the case of many important rulers in history, and the quick collapse of the Qin dynasty after Zheng's death could have shattered his plans for a huge funeral...

Francois

Who is this "Zheng" that you speak of...?

[Sephodwyrm]

The first emperor was named Zheng.

[jlaporte]

there is a longstanding historic tradition of "adapting" archeological findings to received knowledge.

I am not qualified enough to argue. I never read the 竹書紀年 and didn't even know there were other lakes of mercury beside the one I expect/hope one day will be discovered under 秦始皇's huge tumulus.

Few years ago, I visited an extraordinary exhibition gasp in Taipei's national museum displaying an almost unknown Chinese civilisation, apparently anterior to the Shang dynasty and was amazed by the big controversy it raised in Mainland China because it did not concur with the Han accepted cradle and hence, challenged the official line.

But I beg you to try expanding this fascinating topic.

[Koolasuchus]

The first emperor was named Zheng.

True, but he is usually refer to as either Qin Shihuang (Di) or Ying Zheng. Just calling him "Zheng" is a bad habit of European scholars who were not familar with the order of Chinese names are written.

[Kenneth]

I am not qualified enough to argue. I never read the 竹書紀年 and didn't even know there were other lakes of mercury beside the one I expect/hope one day will be discovered under 秦始皇's huge tumulus.

Few years ago, I visited an extraordinary exhibition gasp in Taipei's national museum displaying an almost unknown Chinese civilisation, apparently anterior to the Shang dynasty and was amazed by the big controversy it raised in Mainland China because it did not concur with the Han accepted cradle and hence, challenged the official line.

But I beg you to try expanding this fascinating topic.

Could you name the culture or describe an artefact type displayed?. I doubt there would be much controversy about civilisations either earlier or contemporary to Shang as they have been found and announced before, both earlier 'scripts' (in a fashion) and bronze casting. Maybe the newspapers hype it, but they often are pretty bad for that.
It still shouldnt upset any idea of 'Chinese culture' as the trend is to now recognise the other groups that existed outside of the central plains. Over time they came to be influenced, assimilated or actively adopt the 'Chinese' culture in many ways while others faded from history or became minority groups.
The exhibition you saw might have been these; (see below)

but I would be surprised if such material left the PRC for ROC.

The Qin buried army is 100% real. The German teams are unlikely to keep secrets.
The value to science is tremendous.
I asked a retired senior curator of Shaanxi museum if the stories of Sima Qian are true based on any sub surface x-rays. He said they should be, as testing has shown mercury in the area above natural levels.
There are a number of intact Imperial tombs from Han to Tang existing and I was told when future generations open them they will amaze the world.
Given what is found in the tombs of minor royalty and the above ground features and finds on the periphery on the Imperial tombs known to date I dont doubt it.

Edited by Kenneth, 14 September 2005 - 05:31 PM.

[fcharton]

True, but he is usually refer to as either Qin Shihuang (Di) or Ying Zheng. Just calling him "Zheng" is a bad habit of European scholars who were not familar with the order of Chinese names are written.

This said, I was intrigued by your comment on western scholars, so I had a quick look at a number of old French books, to see which how they referred to the last king of Qin (before he became emperor, that is).

Couvreur, in the chronologies at the end of his translation of the Zuozhuan (Ho Kien Fou 1914), gives the name Zheng. Granet, in Chinese Civilisation (1929) speaks of King Zheng. The Ricci dictionary (the shorter one), edited in Paris and Taipei (Kuangchi press 1976) gives the following names for the last kings of Qin (Wade romanisation system)
- Chao-hsiang Wang
- Hsia-wen Wang
- Chuang-hsiang Wang
- Wang Cheng

So, there seem to be a longstanding tradition of calling him Zheng, or Wang Zheng. This is certainly not because these writers did not understand how Chinese names are written, there were pretty serious guys, not amateur Chinese learners like me, and, in the case of the Ricci dictionary, part of the project team was chinese.

Besides, this tradition is not just European (or Western), in the last paragraphs of Chapter 5 of the Shiji, Sima Qian writes:
莊 襄 王 卒 ， 子 政 立
and (next paragraph)
秦 王 政 立 二 十 六 年 ， 初 并 天 下 為 三 十六 郡 ， 號 為 始 皇 帝 。

Nowhere in the Shi Ji is he called Ying Zheng. This is consistent with all other ancient Chinese texts: kings and princes are almost never referred to by their family names (as opposed to regular citizens, hence Xiang Yu, Liu Bang, but not Ying Zheng, who was a king before he was an emperor). I suspect that referring to Qin Shihuang as Ying Zheng is a very recent habit. Maybe someone can shed light on when it actually started (I’d say a couple of years ago, but that is just a guess…)

However, giving a name to the last king of Qin is indeed a problem. All through the Zhou dynasty, kings and princes were referred to as fiefdom - posthumous name - title, as in
秦莊 襄 王

Now, Qin Shihuangdi did not have a posthumous name (the practice ended with him, to be resurrected by the Han). So how should he be named?

For reasons given above, I don’t think Ying Zheng is correct (it sounds a bit like the prosecutors of Louis XVI, during the French Revolution, calling him “citoyen Capet”, citizen Capet, from his ancestor Hugues Capet). Qin Zheng Wang doesn’t work either, as Zheng is not his posthumous name, and Qin Wang is too unspecific.

Apparently, many ancient Chinese historians, starting with Sima Qian, settled for Qin Wang Zheng (the King of Qin whose (first) name is Zheng) as a way to differenciate with Qin Zhaoxiang Wang (King Zhaoxiang of Qin). This explains the entry Wang Zheng in the Ricci chronology.

Anyway, I should have referred to him as Qin Shihuang. I stand corrected.
Francois

[Suntzu]

OK...I got a question:

I am currently reading a book called "The Terracotta Warriors: The Secret Codes of the Emperor's Army" by Maurice Cotterell (2003, Headline Book Publishing, London). In it, Cotterell claims that Qin Shi Huangdi used the Terracotta Army to encode a message of some sort, and that it's encoded in the 10 facial shapes used (Shen, Ri, Jia, You, Yong, Ji, Mu, Feng, Tian and Guo) in the construction of the warriors' heads. Anyone heard about this? Please help.

[fcharton]

OK...I got a question:

I am currently reading a book called "The Terracotta Warriors: The Secret Codes of the Emperor's Army" by Maurice Cotterell (2003, Headline Book Publishing, London). In it, Cotterell claims that Qin Shi Huangdi used the Terracotta Army to encode a message of some sort, and that it's encoded in the 10 facial shapes used (Shen, Ri, Jia, You, Yong, Ji, Mu, Feng, Tian and Guo) in the construction of the warriors' heads. Anyone heard about this? Please help.

Never heard of it. But Maurice Cotterell seems to be a specialist of this kind of prophecies (a spiritual heir to Erich von Daniken, maybe). Other books by him include

- Tutankhamun prophecies : the sacred secret of the maya, egyptians and freemasons
- The Supergods: they came on a mission to save mankind.

with such credentials, I would be prudent.

Don't throw all the Cotterells with the bath water, though, there is an Arthur Cotterell who published books about chinese history.

Francois

[Suntzu]

Never heard of it. But Maurice Cotterell seems to be a specialist of this kind of prophecies (a spiritual heir to Erich von Daniken, maybe). Other books by him include

- Tutankhamun prophecies : the sacred secret of the maya, egyptians and freemasons
- The Supergods: they came on a mission to save mankind.

with such credentials, I would be prudent.

Don't throw all the Cotterells with the bath water, though, there is an Arthur Cotterell who published books about chinese history.

Francois

Thank you Francois.

Could you please give me details about the Arthur Cotterell books? Would be appreciated

[fcharton]

Thank you Francois.

Could you please give me details about the Arthur Cotterell books? Would be appreciated

Not much, in fact, I have seen some of them in libraries, but ahve not read any.

He seems to be a pretty prolific popular history writer, with a bunch a encyclopedias (on mythology, on ancient civilisations), a quick google search brought a book called China (apparently a general history of China), one called Cultural history of china, and a third called ancient china.

Francois